Poll: The Truth of 9-11

It is not the norm for polls to be held on ATS. At one time the ability to create a poll was an integrated function, but I understand that as a result of chronic overuse, the function was removed. In fact, I think at one stage the number of polls outweighed the normal posts. However, I feel that the events on that fateful day of September 11th, 2001 constitute the greatest conspiracy of our time, or at the very least, the greatest source of conspiracy theories in our time. ATS is very clearly - and sometimes heatedly - divided on the issue. Combine this division with my insatiable curiosity and you have the impetus for...this poll.

Dr. David Ray Griffin outlined the four main interpretations or modes of thinking in regards to the events of 9-11. I would like to use [three of] those as the criteria for this poll.

Here are the interpretations:

===================================================================================

A. Accept the Official Story: For those who accept the official interpretation, 9/11 was a surprise attack on the US government and its people by Islamic terrorists.

B. Bush Admin. had Prior Knowledge: For a second group, the term “9-11” connotes an event with a more sinister dimension. These people believe that the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and intentionally let them happen.

C. Inside Job: According to a third view of 9/11, the attacks were not merely foreknown by the Bush administration; they were orchestrated by it.




===================================================================================

So please reply with which version of the events you believe to be true. I will update the poll graphic and statistics periodically. While you should feel free to add a comment with your vote, I also humbly request that we keep this thread free from debates on the issue itself and thereby attempt to avoid an atmosphere where members feel intimidated for their vote.

[edit on 2005-7-11 by wecomeinpeace]

[edit on 12-7-2005 by John bull 1]

I'm still not convinced either way.

But I'm headed towards Door #B.

I think that the distinction between choice A and B is moot. Especially if you are looking to survey what people believe about the actual events of 9/11, not the specific consequences.

In fact, I fail to see what the difference is between the two choices as far as the actual events of 9/11 are concerned, other than to dilute the level of response from people who believe in the reality of the attacks.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In fact, I fail to see what the difference is between the two choices as far as the actual events of 9/11 are concerned, other than to dilute the level of response from people who believe in the reality of the attacks.

Good point Howard, but please know that it was not my deliberate intention to split the vote. I'll update the graphic in a moment to remove the "Utilized the Attacks" option.

[edit on 2005-7-11 by wecomeinpeace]

I believe in reality too and the properties of physics, so mark me down for;

D. Inside Job

I would put myself in B, with real worries that C may actually be the case.

I'm not convinced by much of the "evidence" produced by the proponents of option D. Slam a half-million pounds of aluminum, flesh, and jet fuel into any structure at 500mph, and it's going to break.

In fact I think option D is unnecessary, when option C accomplishes the same goal at far less risk.

[edit on 7/11/05 by xmotex]

So I guess the original B. Bush Admin. Utilized the Attacks defaults to A. Accept the Official Story. So Tinkleflower and xmotex, I'll count you as voting for A unless you post to the contrary.

Nah put me in C, or what used to be C anyway
EDIT: B now

I'd have to describe myself as at least mostly convinced that some elements of the adminstration/.gov knew what was coming. How far up it went, I'm not sure.

[edit on 7/11/05 by xmotex]

With a certain level of unsureness, as I can't be sure 100%, more like 95% I choose

C. Inside Job

I feel there's enough Government whistle blowers, motive and unanswered questions to justify my opinion. There are tons of small things out there like the FEMA employee that goofed up and said they arrived on Monday September 10th when he interviewed Dan Rather on Wednesday September the 12th. Sure you can make a mistake but he would of had to have mixed up today with yesterday. I don't buy it he made a mistake that FEMA tried to cover up, and then Rudy Giuliani screwed that lie up by saying that FEMA was there for a drill before 9/11.

wecomeinpeace, I can't see the image below the see. Maybe it's some imcompatibility between that image and my firefox browser.

Grr, this should be a simple poll that got all confusing. Is there a D? I only see A,B,C.


[edit on 11-7-2005 by NoJustice]

well......#C

I have 5 reasons for this decision:

1. Possible 'evidence' for a controlled demolition on 3 distinct towers 1, 2 & 7.

2. Bush lied to the american people and the world.

3. The CIA were running wargames on 9/11.

4. Essential evidence removed from a crime scene of 9/11.

5. 9/11 somehow is linked to Bin laden through al-Q then somehow got linked to Saddam hussain which invevitably led the "Coalition of the Willing" to remove saddam and invade afghanistan to drop tons of depleted uranium dust on innocents and our own troops.

Peace

[edit on 11/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Maybe it's D

D: They knew something was going to happen but they weren't sure exactly when, how or by what method and maybe they had several 'leads' and it was lucky dip time on which it was, and they guessed wrong?

I vote for A, caus' I think that 9/11 could have been prevented, but I do not think that the president knew it was going to happen.

I fall smack in between B and C.

B. Bush Admin. had Prior Knowledge

now they either let it happen or they believed that it wouldnt happened. But that is so many questions surrounding this that need to be answered.

ill take a. thank you very much. i would have taken b. if it says Bush knew something about the intended attacks but the last part says they let it happened intentionally.

Originally posted by maidenwolf
I fall smack in between B and C.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Maybe it's D

D: They knew something was going to happen but they weren't sure exactly when, how or by what method and maybe they had several 'leads' and it was lucky dip time on which it was, and they guessed wrong?

Sorry folks, can you be a little clearer with your answers so I can count your vote?

100% A.

Their is no evidence to think other wise.

Put me down for a Capital C, for crimes committed by the Bush Cabal.

Howard you did not vote can we put you down for the (A) Blue plate special and a side order of freedom Fries?

[edit on 11/7/2005 by Sauron]
Canada

[edit on 11/7/2005 by Sauron]

-C-.....If not orchestrated by Bush and lieutenants, then by someone(s) he couldn't say "No" to.

D: They knew something was going to happen but they weren't sure exactly when, how or by what method and maybe they had several 'leads' and it was lucky dip time on which it was, and they guessed wrong?

i believe one of bushes brothers or cousins (?) was head of security for the WTC complex and his contract ended on september eleventh 2001.


-i am 99.9> percent sure that bush and company had prior knowlege and even details. the questionable circumstances that day leave me thinking about controled demolitions and secret bunkers. not to mention the whole binladen CIA bush connections. its too much.

bush very possibly had a hand in it.


Im going with 'C'.